Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good afternoon.

On behalf of all the members of the committee and the staff, I'd like to say how wonderful it is to be in Whitehorse. People have been so friendly and warm, and it's such a lovely setting. It's a great opportunity for us to learn more about how people in the territory feel and what they think about electoral reform.

It's our thirtieth meeting. We held hearings in Ottawa during the summer and now we are travelling for three weeks. This is the first day of hearings in our second week of travel. Tomorrow we're off to Victoria.

I'll give you an overview of how we've been proceeding. Each witness will be afforded 10 minutes to present. We're a bit tight for time in this panel, so if you can do eight or nine minutes, you certainly get brownie points from the chair, let's put it that way. But you do have a full 10 minutes. At 10 minutes we have to stop the presentation, but it doesn't mean you won't have an opportunity to express your viewpoint during the question and answer period.

After the presentations we have a question and answer period where each member of the committee is allotted five minutes to engage with the witnesses. The five minutes include answers. Sometimes only 30 seconds are left for an MP in that five-minute segment.

I would suggest to the members that if you're at that stage, you might want to use the remaining 30 seconds for a statement or a very rapid-fire question, because before you know it we'll be over the five-minute mark.

To the witnesses, if we are at the five-minute mark and there's no time to answer, please don't worry. You'll have an opportunity the next time you have the mike to answer the previous question, if you wish. We're pretty flexible that way, but we do have to keep to some strict rules about time limits.

We have three witnesses with us this afternoon. Appearing as individuals we have Mr. Kirk Cameron and Mr. Peter Becker. Then appearing on behalf of the Green Party of Canada, Yukon section, we have Mr. Gerald Haase.

We'll start with Mr. Cameron for 10 minutes, please.

[Kirk Cameron, As an Individual]

Thank you, committee chair and members. Welcome to Yukon. It is indeed a pleasure to appear before you on this important national matter.

Ten minutes is short, so I'll jump right into it. I will not spend time on the various models that you are considering; you have had and will have many informed experts speaking about these. My general thought, however, is that a different model that more exactly aligns popular vote with representation in the House of Commons is laudable, and should be what guides you as you wade through the plethora of options that will be before you.

What I wish to speak to this afternoon relates largely to three of the principles you have been asked to explore in your mandate statement, specifically, principle two on engagement, principle three on accessibility, and principle five on local representation. I am coming at these three areas with a northern bias that I hope you will consider as you address the broad interests and issues of this large and complex nation of ours.

Relating to principle two on engagement, I will highlight that, among other things, you are to encourage participation, enhance social cohesion, and offer opportunities for inclusion of under-represented groups in the political process. With respect to this principle, I would suggest you consider the following.

In our Canada of today, we have set as a very high priority working to find a path of reconciliation with the first peoples of this country—first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples. One avenue that is open to you to contribute to this reconciliation is to consider some form of guaranteed representation in the House of Commons for aboriginal peoples. I do not know if New Zealand's chief electoral officer spoke to this unique aspect of the New Zealand parliamentary system, but they have had guaranteed seats for the Maori dating back, interestingly enough, to 1867. Today there are seven Maori seats in its House of Representatives, which is determined through a mixed member proportional system. There are two rolls, one for Maori voting. Maori can choose whether they wish to vote on a general or on a specific Maori roll.

I'm not suggesting this particular model. It's only to say that this is an example of where a parliamentary system has embraced a unique approach so that a first people—in the New Zealand case, the Maori—can, quote, see themselves represented directly in the system.

I am reminded of Jean-Pierre Kingsley's presentation to you. The fifth point that he asked you to consider is that the “Canadian reality must be reflected in the system of representation.” As well, “Canadians must be able to see themselves in their representatives and in the system by which they choose them.”

I believe there is no better way to achieve this than by your committee actively engaging with aboriginal representative groups such as the Assembly of First Nations, and Inuit and Métis organizations, among others, to determine if there is an avenue forward that would achieve this principle for the aboriginal peoples of our country. I do not know if you have hearings set with these groups, but if not, I would suggest that you reach out to them.

I note there is aboriginal interest in reform at the parliamentary level that would build linkages between our aboriginal citizenry and Parliament. You may be aware that in 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended that a house of first peoples be established as a third chamber of Parliament. The details on its role and responsibilities are set out in the commission's report. In brief, it is recommending a chamber with legislative responsibility over bills that have substantive impact over Canada's aboriginal peoples.

In addition, in its 1996 Four-Ten Declaration of Dedication and Commitment, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, a body representing all aboriginal groups with modern land claims agreements in Canada, called for the creation of an independent implementation and review body, perhaps similar to the Office of the Auditor General, reporting directly to Parliament on progress of land claims implementation matters that relate to today's modern treaties.

This proposal is not about the electoral process, per se, but I use this example, along with the RCAP proposal, to underscore that the aboriginal first peoples see Parliament as a fundamentally important institution relating to their relationship in Canada. In short, I would suggest you consider how electoral reform might assist in our reconciliation journey in Canada.

Principle three on accessibility and inclusiveness calls for change that would support access by all eligible voters. This takes one immediately to the consideration of online voting. Indeed, in the first paragraph of the committee's mandate, online voting is expressly noted as a matter for the committee to consider. I wish to bring to the committee's attention that there are many communities throughout the north that do not have reliable communications infrastructure that would reliably support this voting option.

Indeed, even in Yukon if a backhoe in northern British Columbia takes out our one fibre optic cable, the entire territory goes dark. A second line is being worked on, but I use this reality that Yukoners face to raise the point that rural and remote areas of Canada do not have the same level of access to or reliance in this mode of connectivity. Online voting may help many areas of Canada, but do not assume that it is a good option for all regions and communities.

I’ll turn now to principle five on local representation. It recognizes the value that Canadians attach to community, to members of Parliament understanding local conditions and advancing local needs at the national level, and to having access to members of Parliament to facilitate resolution of their concerns and participation in the democratic process.

Here I would like to provide a brief history on Yukon’s democratic journey. It has not been straightforward. Some of this history I am going to recount to you is not about Yukon’s relationship with Parliament, but it is a governance backdrop to consider when reflecting on the interests of a subnational jurisdiction in Canada, that being Yukon.

Our democratic journey has been inconsistent, to say the least. In the late 1890s, the population of the territory jumped to over 40,000 due to gold seekers in the Klondike. Between 1898 and 1908, Yukon’s legislature, at that time referred to as the Yukon Council, grew to a body of eight representatives. This was a wholly elected assembly, in keeping with the evolutionary track most provinces followed throughout their histories. Due to a massive drop in population combined with extreme fiscal pressures on Canada during World War I, this, quote, normal evolution of representative government in the Yukon took a nasty turn.

In 1918 Yukon’s Constitution, otherwise known as the Yukon Act, federal legislation, was amended to give authority to the Governor in Council to abolish the elected council and turn legislating authority to an appointed body. Although this did not happen, given considerable pressure from Yukoners, the Yukon Council was reduced in number from ten to three. This rump stayed in place until 1951, when the number of council members increased to five, and today we find ourselves with nineteen.

In the intervening years there was another event that threatened the very existence of Yukon as a distinct subnational entity in Canada. In 1937 a deal was announced between British Columbia’s Premier Duff Pattullo and Canada for the annexation of Yukon to British Columbia. Only thanks to a particularly thorny political issue around Catholic schools did this deal not go through. We were very close to becoming just another northern region in the province of British Columbia.

This is important to note because Yukon’s political rights journey has been turbulent, to say the least. We do not want this current process on electoral reform to take away any of the advancements that we’ve fought for over these many years. I recommend, in light of this uncertain evolution of political development in Yukon, that you be very careful in determining how a form of proportional representation, if that is indeed what you hone in on, will impact not just Yukon but the three northern territories.

Without a doubt our identities are distinct. In 1995 I co-authored a book with Professor Graham White, from the University of Toronto, called Northern Governments in Transition. A conclusion we reached was that:

…the Yukon, the Western NWT and the Nunavut region differ markedly from one another. At the same time, complex cultural and lifestyle differences are found within each region.

Just as you might risk life and limb if you were to suggest that there are few differences between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, or between Alberta and British Columbia, you may wish to be careful suggesting that the three territories are of similar social, ethnic, economic, or political character. Indeed they are not.

As a consequence, I would caution that whatever model or models you wish to propose, you should not suggest a commonality across the northern region. I suspect you would not think of proportional districts that would overlay a number of provinces. Similarly, do not consider “north” as a homogeneous political state that can be addressed as a single political entity. Doing so would be a profound mistake and completely contrary to the local principle that you are asked to uphold in your deliberations over your model of choice.

We recognize that each territory is privileged in that each has one representative in the House of Commons despite our relatively small populations. However, this is about regional character and distinction. This recognition of the Canadian identity, a collection of its many regions, should not be lost in an effort to find the right proportional mix.

There is a final point I would like to make, and this has nothing to do with the unique fabric or character of the north. I believe that the former Clerk of the Privy Council, whom I briefly had the privilege of working with while I was Yukon’s cabinet secretary, expressed to you a view that I too hold. The selection of candidates in a proportional system should align with the interest in voter preference. In other words, as Mr. Himelfarb suggested to you, it should be “voters rather than parties [that] determine order of candidates”.

Although parties are incredibly important to provide choice to Canadians on public policy options, I agree with the former clerk that we should not hand to parties the ability to choose who we would like in our House to represent us on matters of national importance. That is our job as the electorate in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron. That was very useful testimony, especially regarding the distinction between the territories. I think it's important to keep that in mind, and it bears mentioning. Thank you.

I would like to welcome Larry Bagnell, your local member of Parliament. We're very pleased to have him with the committee today. He's not a permanent member of the committee, but he's here today to listen to what the people of the Yukon have to say about electoral reform.

I'd also like to acknowledge Mr. Pat Kelly, who is not a regular member of the committee but is substituting today.

Thank you both for being here.

We'll go now to Mr. Becker for 10 minutes, please.

[Peter Becker, As an Individual]

Thank you, committee members.

Thank you to everybody who is here. Thank you to the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council, on whose territory we are meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

In my opening statement, I would like to add context to a discussion that perhaps too often is overly technical. Therefore, I'll start off with only one particular observation of detail. The following six words are the first point I'd like to make that concern the public communication of this project. We should try to build consensus in our country by building on the familiarity with the current system. These six words are “first past the post will stay” as part of electoral reform, with possible components such as proportional representation and preferential ballots.

This should be the headline—those six words. Coming consciously from the foundations of Canadian democracy, it is what I believe will decide the outcome of this courageous project also by making it survive, hopefully past another election.

In Canada and beyond, there's a dangerous malaise of disenchantment and cynicism with political representation and political leadership. Electoral reform can become a constructive element of wider democratic restoration. Part of the Prime Minister's good fortune during the election was that he touched on the aspect of technocratic authoritarianism with regard to his father, and Michael Pitfield's Privy Council procedures.

Since those days of Trudeau senior, a shift from a marketplace of ideas toward a dictatorship of ideas has gone much further. Many people don't look at the corrupt and protectionist details of so-called globalized free trade, which is not about trade, and simply blame these democratic crippling flaws on politicians as a quasi-evil species.

Serving the brevity of the occasion, if it were possible to reduce this problem of cynicism, which is relevant to electoral reform, to one source mechanism, we might have to call it out as investor-state dispute settlement that serves up protectionism for big pharma and big oil cartels, etc.

With a triple punch, ISDS allows multinational monopolies to de facto legislate and cripple the reputation and integrity of parliaments, as well as ruining the honour of the crown. One, break the law. Two, raid the Treasury with arbitration panel penalties. Three, make off with or destroy livelihoods and poison land.

Recently, the Prime Minister, certainly as far as North American government positions are concerned, presented us with another novelty by stating that ISDS might have to be removed from CETA, the comprehensive trade agreement, and the European trade agreement, as it has become an absolute no-go with all remaining European Union member governments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Becker, will you be addressing the pros and cons of first past the post?

[Peter Becker]

Well, that's coming along.

Following through on removing anti-democratic ISDS provisions from agreements could evolve into a mark of wisdom for the Canadian government, as it would clarify that electoral reform is not meant to be a fig leaf for democratic health.

I might add that I certainly hope that our member of Parliament, Mr. Bagnell, will take up the Prime Minister's inspiration. He could have beat him to the punch anyway, since he was well informed over the years on what ISDS is all about.

We need to reverse a dictatorship of ideas back to a marketplace of ideas that can be identified. In the current fashion of political elites who ignore the language, any language, of our country, and who instead favour artificial, deceptive language solutions such as globalization, which in reality is not internationalism but merely European provincialism of Chicago economics, it will continue to backfire. ISDS may attack again and attempt to penalize, with extortion, electoral reform legislation itself.

Carbon pricing is the enabling twin of social licence to do harm to economic and ecological survival by pushing back renewable, sustainable economies with oil and gas subsidies. One result is that protectionism and trade restrictions against renewable investments may continue, such as the 2011 NAFTA chapter 11 attack on domestic procurement in Ontario energy development. Racialized finance colonialism against the G77 countries, who pursue renewable leap-frogging and oppose the shackling to oil imports by carbon pricing in conjunction with other structural adjustment penalties in the Paris agreement, could have been avoided.

Canada is the country of Lester Pearson's imaginative diplomacy, of Harold Innis, and of Marshall McLuhan, who inspired high-tech as well as language awareness. Canada can provide substantive climate leadership as a historic pioneer of the climate crisis awareness.

How is it possible that the Treaty No. 3 first nations' final note to Energy East on their lands does not even reach the radar screen of the political pipeline coalition if not a lack of fair representation? Here is a very important aspect as to why first past the post needs to be augmented with such items as preferential ballots and proportional representation.

I think the details of those systems go beyond the scope of a 10-minute presentation, but I do come from some substance here. In the first half of my life, I grew up in West Germany, which actually has a first past the post mixed representation system. I know it in substantial ways. A lot of the flaws that are pointed out can of course easily be avoided by percentage thresholds. We don't want a fragmented House of Commons with 57 parties, like in the Weimar Republic. These things are easily taken care of.

After introducing the vote for women, first nations, non-Caucasians, and non-landowners, electoral reform once again is just catching up a bit further with old aspirations of fair representation. With old aspirations, it is important to invoke the spirit of the foundations of our country, which go back to the great ministry of our first prime minister, Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine and his deputy, Robert Baldwin, who between 1848 and 1851 basically threw out the British landowner system and massively widened the voter base in Canada. This was perhaps the first really significant electoral reform in Canada.

Thanks again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Becker.

We'll go to Mr. Haase now, please, for 10 minutes.

[Gerald Haase, Green Party of Canada-Yukon]

Thank you.

Good evening, honourable members of the special committee, and members of the public. I want to thank the committee for coming to Whitehorse and incorporating northern voices into these very important consultations. Thank you also for providing me the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Yukon federal Green Party.

My name is Gerald Haase. I am and have been the riding president of the Yukon federal Green Party for the last two years. That's right: this is the federal party that perhaps was impacted the most by strategic voting in the federal election of 2015. Locally our vote percentage went from 19% in 2011 to 3% in 2015. We were told by many of our supporters that they felt that they had to vote strategically to wrest control away from the previous government.

Some people are saying that Greens across Canada would benefit the most from the move to some form of proportional representation. This may be true at present, and certainly would have been true during the election last October. Most common forms of PR would have awarded the Green Party of Canada more seats than one. However, I think it's clear that the New Democratic Party would have benefited just as well from pretty well any form of PR and certainly, in given circumstances, the Liberals and Conservatives would benefit from proportional representation.

Please reference the Canadian federal election of 1993, in which the Progressive Conservative Party received only two seats despite a 16% popular vote across Canada. The Bloc Québécois, by the way, had 13.5% of the vote and garnered official opposition status with 54 seats. In these cases, the electorate could have benefited by having a governing body in the House of Commons that is significantly more representative of the will of the Canadian people.

Citizens of Canada, the numbers speak for themselves. Even in this great country, where elections are carefully regulated, single member plurality or first past the post does not result in fair election results, especially in current times where more than two political parties run for office.

I think anyone who says that first past the post is the best electoral system for Canada is ignoring a large body of evidence that says otherwise. The Green Party of Canada recognized some time ago that the present electoral system cannot accommodate the cultural diversity and political realities of Canada. We strongly support the present government in its efforts to develop a system of electing the federal representatives that reflects these realities. First past the post is a system of the past for many reasons.

Canada's current first-past-the-post system results in a monopoly of decision-making powers in a rapidly changing global environment where adaptability will be key for successful governance. Really, why should we continue to use a system in which a government chosen with 35% of the popular vote could possibly govern, without checks or balances, a citizenry that basically rejected the policies of this government?

First past the post also can result in, and indeed has resulted in, huge policy swings. Do we really want social, economic, and environmental policies to change radically at the whim of the latest government?

A byproduct of using the first-past-the-post system is the trend of decreasing voter turnout. With many voters turned off by a feeling of disempowerment, and others just seeing no reason to become engaged, fewer citizens are voting. I don't see how anyone can see this as a positive situation.

The winner-take-all scenario that arises from first-past-the-post voting is an illustration of what not to do in political science surveys. Thanks to the work of academics Arend Lijphart, Salomon Orellana, Dennis Pilon, and others, we have social science studies that illustrate that proportional systems outperform first-past-the-post systems in a number of key ways. By trying to make every vote count and allowing for a wider range of views to be represented in Parliament, PR empowers ordinary citizens. This can be expected to have an impact on inequality and access to social services over time and could determine how a country deals with diversity more generally.

This point provides the central argument in a recent book by Salomon Orellana in 2014. The following information comes from Fair Vote Canada's website, where Orellana argues that increased opportunities for diversity and dissent allow PR countries to outperform in four key areas. The number one stated area is policy innovation. One example is how quickly the public accepts and the government can act on new and innovative ideas. The other side of this coin is that these new ideas are vetted by a wider range of participants from varying ideologies, strengthening the innovation.

Point number two made by Orellana is that PR mitigates the pandering of politicians in the pursuit of voters by promising quick-fix solutions. This point I think speaks for itself. A word about that word “pandering”; I searched for a kindler, gentler word to use in a room of politicians, and Microsoft Word gave me nothing. It's buying votes, and we know that this can lead to quick-fix solutions.

Point number three made by Orellana is that PR increases the political sophistication of the electorate. Is this not a laudable goal?

Point number four is that proportional representation limits elite control over decision-making.

In closing, I'd like to commend Fair Vote Canada and say to the committee that this organization has done a lot of groundwork in its presentation to the committee and in providing resources to Canadians engaged in electoral reform. Fair Vote Canada suggests three different electoral systems for consideration. I'm not speaking on behalf of the Green Party at this point, but I believe that each of these systems, as well as the preferential ridings proportional system suggested by Dave Brekke of Whitehorse, would be a huge improvement over our current system.

Voters in over 90 countries around the world are smart enough to figure out PR systems. I'm confident that Canadians are too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Haase.

We'll now move on to the round of questioning, beginning with Ms. Romanado for five minutes, please.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much.

Thank you to our three witnesses today for being here, and of course thank you to the residents of Whitehorse who are here today. It's not every day you want to spend a Monday afternoon in a conference room, so thank you for being here.

I also want to acknowledge that we are meeting on the official territory of the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and the Kwanlin Dün First Nation. Thank you. We're delighted to be here.

Mr. Cameron, I'll just admit that when a couple of us here on the panel saw your name, we wondered if you were the same Kirk Cameron who was on Growing Pains when we were children growing up. If so, I want your autograph; otherwise, I still want your autograph.

You talked a little bit about the challenges we have to increase the participation of those who are less likely to be involved in politics. We hear a lot about our first nations, our youth, our visible minorities, and folks who traditionally don't get involved. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what you feel would be the ideal electoral system to increase the participation of these stakeholder groups, not only in voting but in running for office.

[Kirk Cameron]

Thank you for the question.

You raise a very interesting point. I was in a recent conversation with some individuals, both women, by the way, who were interested in running for city council here in Whitehorse. I was a former city councillor. In both of their cases, they say that life is far too busy for them to take on a role as a city councillor. We thought about whether there are ways in which we could perhaps go after the territorial government to allow some flexibility through the Municipal Act that would allow two individuals, two women, to run for one seat on council, as a novel thought on how to do it.

I realize it's reaching. It's way out there as far as a notion goes, but I think what we have to do is strip away the normal, if you will, and start looking at some creative ideas for those who are economically disadvantaged, those who are life-challenged—I would put a lot of single parents in that particular department—and those individuals who may need some stretching of the boundaries. We have to consider unique ways in which to have them step forward to take on these critical roles within our state and in our society.

In our case in the Yukon territory, we have another level of government. I don't know if you're aware, but thanks to land claims agreements that have been settled in the territory, we now have 11 self-governing Yukon first nations. Interestingly enough, they're reasonably well represented by women in chief and council roles throughout the territory, but I do know that is a very serious consideration. It's a big-time commitment to be involved and engaged at the political level within first nations government, municipal government, territorial government, and indeed federal government here.

I think Larry Bagnell's lifetime commitment to spending his time in airplanes is one of the inhibiting factors we have in such a massive country, where we expect our members of Parliament, certainly at the farthest reaches of the country, to fly the distances they do to be able to be here to represent and speak with Yukoners and bring those thoughts back to Parliament.

That's just scratching the surface. For every topic and for every subject, there's a host of ways in which we could start discussing different avenues to try to accommodate or engage citizens who experience those kind of additional challenges to be reflected in our institutions of government.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

You bring up a good point—I think you're the first person to bring up the idea—about job-sharing, about having, for instance, two women run for the position on council. As you've mentioned, we're hearing that it's not always the electoral system itself that is a barrier for folks to enter politics. You mentioned geography, and the fact that our colleague here in the Yukon spends 16 hours to get to Ottawa every week and back. That is crazy.

We can see that people of Generation X and Generation Y are looking for a work-life balance. They're not going to want to spend that one precious commodity—time—in an airport. It's not value-added and it's not meaningful work for them to be sitting in an airport or in an airplane. What we're seeing is that it's not necessarily only the electoral system and the way we vote that is a hindrance to people to want to seek office.

I love the fact that you brought up job-sharing, because we haven't heard that here before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Romanado. We have to go on, but that was a very good statement of the situation.

Mr. Reid for five minutes, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for you, Mr. Cameron. You brought up the issue of aboriginal seats, and you gave the example of the Maori seats in New Zealand. They are one of two jurisdictions that are roughly similar to Canada, that I am aware of, that have some form of aboriginal seat, with seven seats in the New Zealand House of Representatives. The Maine state legislature has, as I understand it, four seats that are non-voting and that are assigned to what the Americans would call tribes. There are four different tribes. I was looking this up after your comments. They just added one in for a group that had been neglected in their traditional arrangement.

So the idea has respectable antecedents, and I would have no difficulties seeing at a practical level how it could be implemented within, for example, the Yukon territorial legislature or indeed within the legislature of any Canadian province.

As a practical matter, however, I'm trying to think of how one would do this at our federal level, because that is after all what our mandate is here. Within the Yukon you have one seat to work with. You can see the problem I'm coming at, and it's particularly difficult in the case of your territory, or the Northwest Territories. It's maybe less problematic if we're talking about one of our provinces and how we deal with their representation.

Could I ask for your thoughts on that practical issue?

[Kirk Cameron]

Thank you for the question.

You are nailing an incredibly important point, which I would turn back to the committee. Is there a way to find a vehicle to have aboriginal representation guaranteed within the House of Commons? That is the question I ask that the committee also consider. As you are thinking about ways to divide or assign seats from a proportionality perspective, are there ways in which you can do the same thing on a regional basis? Perhaps you use the historic and the numbered treaties. Of course, that then does not include any of the north, because other than a bit of the Northwest Territories, we don't have numbered or historic treaties here. We have modern land claims agreements.

There is a highly complex weave of relationships among various aboriginal groups across the country connecting to our federal system. In short, it will not be easy to figure out what that would look like. I would like to suggest that you speak to the first nations and aboriginal organizations to ask them if they have a sense of how that might be worked out on a national basis.

What do we have, about 640 or 660 distinct aboriginal first nations? In the territory we have the Inuit in the central and eastern Arctic. We have a different set of groups in Yukon, as we do in the Northwest Territories. There is a very complex array of subnationalities within that overall population of Canada, so I would not want to suggest a particular model, but I would recommend that you have that conversation with the aboriginal people of Canada, if you think it does have some merit, to see if there is a way to find that bridge.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

We'll have a chance to do that tomorrow, so your comment is timely.

I wanted to highlight the practical difficulty. Just looking at those two models.... We are at the point now where I get to make a comment. There won't be enough time for you to respond to this, I think. It appears to me that there are things that distinguish New Zealand and Maine from us. Number one, they are a unitary structure, whereas we are federal, and our seats must respect our.... So that's one thing.

Second, in New Zealand their problems are simplified by the fact that they have a single treaty for the entire country, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Maori are effectively a single nationality. Whether it would be correct to say that they are a single ethnicity, I am not sure, but they are certainly much more homogenous than our Canadian aboriginal people, who are about as homogenous as, say, the people of Europe are.

You suggested using treaties, and it looks like that is what they have done in the case of Maine. They have basically said that the specific separate groups, regardless of population, get a representative; we won't worry about an equal representation in terms of numbers, but it doesn't matter because they are non-voting.

I will stop there because we are out of time, but you have raised some interesting questions. I think that, if we as a group are going to tackle this, we need to be thinking about those kinds of broad questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Cullen, go ahead.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our panel. Thank you to the Ta'an Kwäch'än and the Kwanlin Dün, who allow us to do our business on their territory today.

I also welcome Larry, a friend. We have a long-standing debate as to who has the most beautiful riding in Canada. I argue that Yukon is a very close second to Skeena in the northwest of B.C., where I was this past weekend. We had a town hall, talking with Taku River Tlingit and some of the local folks in Atlin. At one point I had to get online while I was in a meeting, and I asked at the coffee shop how the Internet was that day. She said it wasn't bad; it wasn't raining. When it rains, the Internet slows down, because they're on a microwave feed out of Atlin to another tower, to then hook up to the main line, which is a single line south. One mistake and that's it. We all go back to a cash society, trade and barter, and all sorts of those good things that are solid.

I will start with you, Mr. Cameron. I think Mr. Reid asked some very good questions about the practicality, or even the desire, with the first nations leadership and people I work with as to whether they would want allocated seats in the House of Commons. I am not convinced of that yet, but I am open to hearing that conversation, and it is good for the committee to consider.

In terms of the practicality of online, we have been struggling with this. It is a risk-reward question. What reward do you get from allowing greater accessibility and perhaps more people participating versus the risk of either the system being hacked and interfered with or the connectivity to people? Would you imagine the possibility of some sort of hybrid, where some people would vote online and some people would vote in the traditional way? Is that something you would be open to?

[Kirk Cameron]

Thank you, sir.

Yes, I think that's basically my cautionary note to the committee. No matter what state-of-the-art high-tech approach we move toward, and frankly, I believe we should move in that direction, there's no reason, in the age of the Net, that we shouldn't look at ways in which we can allow for electronic voting. It gives so much more accessibility to the, quote, polls if it's virtual than if you have to go out on a rainy or stormy night to make your way to the polling station.

I'm a big fan of it. I just say let's not necessarily think that it will replace more manual and specific options that need to be there, I think, to ensure that they...individuals in especially more remote and less accessible areas can have.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, it's those two elements. We had people who work in the high-tech community come forward to this committee and flatly tell us not to do it, even though that's what their business is, simply because we can't guarantee. There's no such thing as a 100% secure system. That gives one pause. We talked about it as well for military personnel serving overseas, wondering if that would be secure, or a good idea.

I want to talk about a different kind of connectivity. I'll ask you this and then I'll go to Mr. Haase. You indicated I believe in your statement the openness to a proportional system or systems, in which the percentage of vote is reflected into the House of Commons; that then affects how policies are made, not unilaterally by one party in most cases; yet a connectivity remains, a geographic one, specifically in places like Yukon, where the idea that there would ever be a blended representation, in which you didn't know or didn't have someone specifically sent from this land, from this area....

Am I summarizing your comments right, that you would be open to it but you seek to maintain that idea of direct representation, geographic representation?

[Kirk Cameron]

That's correct. In short, I don't think we should ignore the fact that we have these subnational geographies in this country. We're split up into 13 parts for a good reason. We should not ignore that reality and the social and cultural connectivity that exists within each of those regions. That sense of identity, that sense of place, is very important to who we are as citizens of the country and citizens of the particular region in which we live. I don't think whatever model you look at should stray across those kinds of boundaries and suggest something else.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Haase, perhaps you'd like to answer the same question in the time remaining. It's with regard to the proposal of a blended system in which some seats are proportional, yet we maintain the seats that are directly geographic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Be fairly brief, please.

[Gerald Haase]

I think this could be achieved. I believe Fair Vote Canada submitted such a proposal, called “Rural-Urban Proportional”. There are ways to achieve it. I'm certainly opposed to large party lists.

In the case of the north, I think it's important to vote an MP in your area, but I don't see any reason why there couldn't be an additional two MPs, say, representing the north on a proportional basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Ste-Marie—